Cargando…

Lack of uniform diagnostic criteria for cervical radiculopathy in conservative intervention studies: a systematic review

PURPOSE: Cervical radiculopathy (CR) is a common diagnosis. It is unclear if intervention studies use uniform definitions and criteria for patient selection. Our objective was to assess the uniformity of diagnostic criteria and definitions used in intervention studies to select patients with CR. MET...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Thoomes, Erik J., Scholten-Peeters, Gwendolijne G. M., de Boer, Alice J., Olsthoorn, Remy A., Verkerk, Karin, Lin, Christine, Verhagen, Arianne P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer-Verlag 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3535232/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22531897
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2297-9
_version_ 1782475402698031104
author Thoomes, Erik J.
Scholten-Peeters, Gwendolijne G. M.
de Boer, Alice J.
Olsthoorn, Remy A.
Verkerk, Karin
Lin, Christine
Verhagen, Arianne P.
author_facet Thoomes, Erik J.
Scholten-Peeters, Gwendolijne G. M.
de Boer, Alice J.
Olsthoorn, Remy A.
Verkerk, Karin
Lin, Christine
Verhagen, Arianne P.
author_sort Thoomes, Erik J.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Cervical radiculopathy (CR) is a common diagnosis. It is unclear if intervention studies use uniform definitions and criteria for patient selection. Our objective was to assess the uniformity of diagnostic criteria and definitions used in intervention studies to select patients with CR. METHODS: We electronically searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Studies were included when evaluating conservative interventions in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in patients with CR. Selection criteria and definitions for patients with CR were extracted and evaluated on their uniformity. RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs were included. Pain was used as an inclusion criterion in 11 studies. Inclusion based on the duration and location of pain varied between studies. Five studies used sensory symptoms in the arm as inclusion criterion. Four studies used cervical range of motion and motor disturbances as inclusion criteria, while reflex changes were used in two studies. Three studies included patients with a positive Spurling’s test and two studies used it within a cluster of provocation tests. CONCLUSIONS: Criteria used to select patients with CR vary widely between different intervention studies. Selection criteria and test methods used are poorly described. There is consensus on the presence of pain, but not on the exact location of pain.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3535232
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Springer-Verlag
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-35352322013-01-04 Lack of uniform diagnostic criteria for cervical radiculopathy in conservative intervention studies: a systematic review Thoomes, Erik J. Scholten-Peeters, Gwendolijne G. M. de Boer, Alice J. Olsthoorn, Remy A. Verkerk, Karin Lin, Christine Verhagen, Arianne P. Eur Spine J Review Article PURPOSE: Cervical radiculopathy (CR) is a common diagnosis. It is unclear if intervention studies use uniform definitions and criteria for patient selection. Our objective was to assess the uniformity of diagnostic criteria and definitions used in intervention studies to select patients with CR. METHODS: We electronically searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Studies were included when evaluating conservative interventions in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in patients with CR. Selection criteria and definitions for patients with CR were extracted and evaluated on their uniformity. RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs were included. Pain was used as an inclusion criterion in 11 studies. Inclusion based on the duration and location of pain varied between studies. Five studies used sensory symptoms in the arm as inclusion criterion. Four studies used cervical range of motion and motor disturbances as inclusion criteria, while reflex changes were used in two studies. Three studies included patients with a positive Spurling’s test and two studies used it within a cluster of provocation tests. CONCLUSIONS: Criteria used to select patients with CR vary widely between different intervention studies. Selection criteria and test methods used are poorly described. There is consensus on the presence of pain, but not on the exact location of pain. Springer-Verlag 2012-04-25 2012-08 /pmc/articles/PMC3535232/ /pubmed/22531897 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2297-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2012 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
spellingShingle Review Article
Thoomes, Erik J.
Scholten-Peeters, Gwendolijne G. M.
de Boer, Alice J.
Olsthoorn, Remy A.
Verkerk, Karin
Lin, Christine
Verhagen, Arianne P.
Lack of uniform diagnostic criteria for cervical radiculopathy in conservative intervention studies: a systematic review
title Lack of uniform diagnostic criteria for cervical radiculopathy in conservative intervention studies: a systematic review
title_full Lack of uniform diagnostic criteria for cervical radiculopathy in conservative intervention studies: a systematic review
title_fullStr Lack of uniform diagnostic criteria for cervical radiculopathy in conservative intervention studies: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Lack of uniform diagnostic criteria for cervical radiculopathy in conservative intervention studies: a systematic review
title_short Lack of uniform diagnostic criteria for cervical radiculopathy in conservative intervention studies: a systematic review
title_sort lack of uniform diagnostic criteria for cervical radiculopathy in conservative intervention studies: a systematic review
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3535232/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22531897
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2297-9
work_keys_str_mv AT thoomeserikj lackofuniformdiagnosticcriteriaforcervicalradiculopathyinconservativeinterventionstudiesasystematicreview
AT scholtenpeetersgwendolijnegm lackofuniformdiagnosticcriteriaforcervicalradiculopathyinconservativeinterventionstudiesasystematicreview
AT deboeralicej lackofuniformdiagnosticcriteriaforcervicalradiculopathyinconservativeinterventionstudiesasystematicreview
AT olsthoornremya lackofuniformdiagnosticcriteriaforcervicalradiculopathyinconservativeinterventionstudiesasystematicreview
AT verkerkkarin lackofuniformdiagnosticcriteriaforcervicalradiculopathyinconservativeinterventionstudiesasystematicreview
AT linchristine lackofuniformdiagnosticcriteriaforcervicalradiculopathyinconservativeinterventionstudiesasystematicreview
AT verhagenariannep lackofuniformdiagnosticcriteriaforcervicalradiculopathyinconservativeinterventionstudiesasystematicreview